After the EOS R3, Canon will introduce new “affordable” RF mount cameras [CR1]

Maru

EOS 90D
Feb 9, 2019
123
30
You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.

For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.

If all people are dying to buy another lens, why has Canon only sold 1.4 EOS lenses for each EOS body they've sold over the past 34 years?

The vast majority of DSLR/MILC buyers buy one lens with the camera and that's it. Period.

The 0.4 lenses per 1 body have all been bought by a very small number of us that have bought 3-4 lenses (bought new) for each body we've bought new. Used purchases and sales make no difference whatsoever to Canon.
There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant

Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.

But now people are upgrading from an excellent smartphone camera, not a point and shoot. And, now there are systems that are going to be a lot cheaper than RF while also having much smaller lenses since the RF mount needs to accommodate FF lenses. These smaller systems are more attractive to people used to carrying a tiny phone around as their camera.

If they are educated on the alternatives, most of the people who bought a Rebel will likely *not* elect to buy an RF APS-C as there will be other smaller and cheaper aps-c and m43 options that have that same "pro" upgrade over their smartphone

Small, light, and cheap is what made mirrorless take off in general. The RF mount by being stuck with accommodating full frame lenses will likely always be beat in all three of these categories by competitors, it's simple physics from the larger mount.
I agree with your point and I think Canon has changed its policy to focus on people with a> completely pro, who can afford very costly gears or have lot of gears which they cant get rid off or b> who wants to stay with whatever they have till those are gone with aging c> beginner marker ..may be its because of what they want or may be because they started late on mirrorless and still struggling to speedup on middle tier
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
Again, the R6 came out with a lower resolution than the 6D2 while costing $1000 more years later. The fact a 32mp APS-C sensor exists doesn't mean it will be used.

The EOS 6D Mark II debuted in 2017 at $1,900 in the U.S. and stayed at that price for well over one year. The EOS R6 is currently selling for $2,500 in the U.S. well less than one year after it began shipping. That's hardly a $1,000 dollar difference, especially when the value of $1,900 in 2017 equates to the value of $2,086 today.

Based on their treatment of the 7 series as the red headed stepchild of the lineup, this slice of the market seems to be the absolute lowest priority for Canon

I have no disagreement with that.

The other option is to spend a bit more on an R5, R5s, R3, etc and this is what Canon wants you to do

No, the other option is to spend nothing if it's going to cost one more to do something than the revenue that something generates and one isn't willing to do it at a loss.

I think these are high hopes. I fully expect Canon will instead attempt to sell through all of their expensive full frame mirrorless cameras that can be used for sports before offering people a cheaper alternative. That would be the best way to maximize profit and usually how Canon rolls.

If that's the case, then we'll probably never see an R7.

It's definitely possible physically , it just depends how powerful of a professor they put in it how fast the fps will be.

Surely you're not suggesting that multiple images of a moving subject exposed in sequence combined into a very high megapixel single image will work for sports? Even if it could be done to image a moving target with several lower resolution exposures combined to produce a single 200MP frame, the processing demands of such a method would certainly prevent high frame rate continuous bursts for more than a handful of frames?

And you see no benefit for the 70-200 of having effective 70-320mm range instead of 112-320 without requiring a lens swap?

Nope. The angle of view at 70mm with an APS-C sensor picks up right were the angle of view from a 24-105mm on a FF ends.

Or that you could be using the 70-200 for portraits and then immediately use it for a reach shot while using the same body?

Nope. I don't do those kinds of posed portraits with off camera flashes on the sidelines of sporting events.

Or the ability for the 70-200 to be both a reach lens and a portrait lens while the other camera can be used with a 16-35?

I often use a 135mm f/2 for portraits (on FF). That's a narrower AoV than 70mm on APS-C. I don't find it restricting at all.

I rarely shoot portraits with multiple bodies, either. The setup for the lights and modifiers is different for shooting closer with a WA lens than it is for shooting further out with a telephoto. So it's not just a question of grabbing another body with a much wider lens on it. It's also a question of rearranging the lighting.


The benefits of high MP is extreme flexibility that APS-C lacks.

There are also benefits of using APS-C for specific shooting situations that cropping a FF camera lacks. Sometimes flexibility is not needed as much as a specific tool for a specific job is needed. It's the reason most of us prefer prime lenses over 18-400mm superzooms. I've already mentioned several of them more than once, but you refuse to listen when I say that I see them as an advantage for me, so I'll not waste more time here trying again.
 
Last edited:

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
465
438
Again, almost all 7D Mark II users I know (admittedly a much smaller sample size than the numbers Canon has) also own FF bodies. It's different tools for different jobs.

The difference in cost is not between the FF and APS-C bodies, it is the difference in cost of using a $2K 70-200/2.8 that we already own with a high density APS-C sensor vs. the cost of using a $6K 300/2.8 lens that we don't own with a lower density FF sensor.

At the time the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in 2014 , the 5D Mark III was 22 MP, which crops to only 7.8 MP at APS-C dimensions. Even the 30 MP 5D Mark IV introduced in 2016 only crops to 11.7MP. The 45MP R5 of 2020 crops to 17 MP. That's getting close to the 2014 7D Mark II, but it is a far cry from the 2019 32MP D90/M6 Mark II sensor that has the same density as an 82 MP FF sensor.

When you can use a $2K lens you already own with an APS-C sports body instead of needing a $6K+ lens you don't own, APS-C starts to make a LOT of sense for those shooting sports/action in light limited situations.
I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.

At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
465
438
Camera rotation is a problem mostly for those who hold their left hand over the lens like a local TV news videographer and support most of the weight of the camera with their right hand. Not so much for those who properly support the camera's weight with the left hand firmly underneath the lens and the left elbow tucked against their left rib cage and don't need to use a death grip with their right hand.
Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,261
5,376
At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.
Really?

0EF58C55-E8B4-4F66-AAEA-17BF92F5DF75.jpeg
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.

What's that got to do with how folks hold their cameras?
 

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
924
56
If that's the case, then we'll probably never see an R7.

Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.

I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be as good or nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience at a lower price but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see R7 happening remotely soon is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.

Surely you're not suggesting that multiple images of a moving subject exposed in sequence combined into a very high megapixel single image will work for sports? Even if it could be done to image a moving target with several lower resolution exposures combined to produce a single 200MP frame, the processing demands of such a method would certainly prevent high frame rate continuous bursts for more than a handful of frames?

If the processor is powerful enough, it is physically doable for sports at least is what I am saying - just requires a more powerful processor. I don't know what Canon has in mind exactly, but I would hope it would have some ability for motion otherwise it would have an extremely limited use case of still-life only.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.

I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see this happening is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.



If the processor is powerful enough, it is physically doable for sports at least is what I am saying - just requires a more powerful processor. I don't know what Canon has in mind exactly, but I would hope it would have some ability for motion otherwise it would have an extremely limited use case of still-life only.


Based on all I've seen, the R3 will be a sports body, but the R1 will then be a 1-Series continuation along the lines of the 1Ds/5D III and IV concept of high resolution bodies optimized more for studio, portrait, and wedding work than for sports. It seems to me they are dividing the 1-Series line back into separate sports/reportage and studio/fashion models.




It all depends upon what kind of lenses and how many of them Canon thinks an R7 can sell that wouldn't otherwise be sold. We'll see eventually.




You may have heard about a few issues of heat with the R5? That would be a minor warmup compared to the firestorm of heat generated by what you're proposing.

No one in their right mind thinks using multiple exposures and precise IBIS movements to create very high resolution images would be useful as a sports camera. For one, the camera would need to be absolutely stationary, so one couldn't follow the action while shooting in burst mode. Every other camera I'm aware of that uses IBIS movements to generate high resolution images from multiple lower resolution frames can only use that feature as an extremely limited use case for still life only.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
465
438
Interesting that the difference is much greater in the lower right and upper left corners than in the rest of the scene.

View attachment 198304
My experience with the r5 is that it stays just over a stop ahead of the 90D (I have both) up to at least 12800 and that includes more pixels in the bargain. If you click the comp button, it gives a better idea of the relative amount of detail captured. I suspect a fair bit of the difference results from how hard the 90D pushes lenses. The MTF on most lenses drops like a rock at that resolution. I have a lot of glass and not much of it takes full advantage of that sensor.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,657
2,142
This is only true of Canon lenses.
Third-party lens makers do no have to stick to that.

I doubt Canon makes decisions about the size of the mount ring for an entire line of camera bodies aimed at a specific market that does not include camera gearheads based on what third party lens makers may or may not do.

Further, how many third party lenses are currently available for the EOS-M mount? A mount that has been around for nearly a decade now? Perhaps the third party lens makers also realize, along with Canon, that the typical EOS M buyer does not collect lenses the way those here at Canon Rumors do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
581
317
No, it doesn't. As I stated, Nikon had that migration path.
And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.

In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount. But please stop just ignoring what I explained now several times and continue citing the false example of Canon as a company that retained a mount and paid a price. (That would be a parallel if Canon, instead of making the EF-M the size of the RF mount, instead continued using the inappropriate EF-M mount for the R series bodies. They'd have a bad electronic bus and small mounting aperture, both of which would cripple the system.)


but your logic has more holes than a wheel of Emmental
OK, that was pretty funny :-D

If you increase flange focal distance by 10%, you're going to have a thicker camera. The EF-M mount has a 47mm throat diameter, the RF mount has a 54 mm throat diameter. Look at the M2, where the distance from the edge of the mount to the edge of the camera is ~2mm at the top and <1mm at the bottom, and tell me that increasing the throat diameter by 7mm would not increase the size of the camera.
  • Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.

You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?

Launching an APS-C EOS R will not prove you right. The R line is targeted at high-end buyers
YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.

In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.

Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:

  • When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
  • In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
  • R comes out, with its initial 3-4 lenses... but it turns out, hey presto, another 4 lenses long used by M shooters work full-image on the R! And all the small-sensor ones do too! And if you choose to use those with the small image circle, then you can shoot now and tweak framing later. Take any shot and make it a vertical shot. Or make it square or 2:3 or 9:16 or 4:3 without wasting pixels. Or rotate it a few degrees to straighten up the angles without having to throw away pixels. The result is that an 18-55 zoom on the M works on the R and gives you the same MP as the typical M body and same "reach", when that's convenient for you. And when not, then use big-boy full-frame lenses.
  • Meanwhile put any of your big-boy full-frame lenses on your M body. Maybe you're backpacking but want that pro-quality macro, or what have you.

But as I stated, Canon said small size is a big part of the M design philosophy, and bigger bodies and lenses are counter to that philosophy, which is reason enough to make the choices Canon made
Right, and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all. Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,570
3,969
Irving, Texas
Would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak.
You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.